Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1887-10-20

filed in and gave their verdict. They
rendered verdict of mot guilty"
The interest in court this morning
centered in the sand case SO much
talked of-that of Captain John Ray,
Captain of the large schooner
s. Riley" Captain Ray had been in
dicted for taking sand from beach on
the Delaware Bay property of VIM. b.
Nixon. Court was opened little
before ten O'Clock, Judge Westcott,
who, with Mr.. VanSyckel, were coun-
sci for the defendant, came in while
the general panel of the Jurors was
being called. The case was called and
Captain Ray seated himself beside his
counsel, Judge Westcott. VIM. Tay-
lor, B. B. Elwel, Levi D. johnson,
Frank Swing, Enos Woodruff, B. E.
Horner, David w. Sheppard, Allen
Vangilder, Joseph Wheaton, Milford
G. Applegate, David Dare and James
Smith, were the jury empaneled.
Previous to the jury being sworn,
Joseph Wheaton, M. G. Applegate,
and David W. Sheppard, were chal-
lenged by the defence, and Z. r. Poul-
son, David G. Compton, and Theodore
Rogers, were substituted. The jury
was then sworn, the State making no
challenges. The case was opened by
the prosecutor. Captain Ray was in
dicted for stealing sand fromthe beach,
the property of VIM. G. Nixon, in
Downe township, last May, also for
stealing sand from the property of the
State of New Jersey. It was claimed
that the sand had been taken by the
defendant from above high water
mark and carried away in the vessel of
the defendant, by the defendant.
w. B. Trenchard was the first wit
ness called, who produced maps made
from actual surveys in 1888, showing
the location from which the sand was
taken-the property of Mr.. Nixon.
Some of the maps were made by the
witness, and some by Surveyor named
Lawrence.
The maps were admitted in evidence.
| W. G.. Nixon was placed upon the
stand and stated that he was the
owner of a tract of marsh in Downa
township and had known Captain
Ray since early in 1886. The captain
came to him to rent said marsh for
the purpose of carrying and from a
point in the marsh, and made him an
offer for the privilege of doing so.
The offer was not accepted but he re-
ferred the captain to his son, but no
contract was ever made, and he never
| gave the captain permission to remove
a grain of sand
The Judge sent for the Jury in the
Elmer Englishand others case to come
up. They soonfiled in looking haggard
and weary after their long night. It
had disagreed and was discharged un-
til tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
J. Boyd Nixon sworn. Said that
after the rendering of the decree as to
title, he had, acting for his father, in
formed Captain Ray that he must take
no more sandfro the property, and
that the property would Eot be rented
to him on any terms.
The cross examination developed the
fact that vessels had taken sand from
there since Mr.. NiXons possession
of the property, on account of the dis
pute as to title with the Walters heirs.
Charles s. Lore, fisherman, ,swore
that he had seen Captain Ray taking
sand from the property on the Goth,
e1st, and 2Sth of May, and the Sd and
4th of June, 1886.
Harvey S. Lore followed this wit
ness, and was with him on May 21st,
and saw Captain Ray getting sand on
the beach above high-water mark
Phineas Hires, of Deerfield, also saw
Captain Ray taking sand when he was
down fishing with Charles and Harvey
p. Lore. When this witness was put
upon the stand, the Court said it was
obvious that this case would take up
the day. The other jurors, and the
witnesses in all the other cases were
excused until to- morrow at 10 o'clock.
Samuel H. Davis was called, and
WIN. G Nixon was recalled, which
closed the prosecution.
In beginning the defence, Judge
Westcott wanted to know whether the
case being tried was for grand or petit
larceny. The Court settled that that
point was immaterial Another point
of thedefence was that no appropri-
alton Of the property had been shown.
Held by the Court to be question of
fact for the jury. 1t was also claimed
that, as to the charge of taking sand
from the State, no evidence had been
submitted, and the case on that count
had hiled, and could not go to the
jury. The Court held that an acquittal
could not be had on the one point;
neither can this be used against the
Io%1 fo, t1,D Gx,4